Why the study?
Anti-arrhythmic drugs and endocardial pulmonary vein isolation are less successful in non-paroxysmal AF, prompting an update to 2020 best practices for hybrid convergent ablation based on gained clinical experience and evidence.
This document provides updated best practice recommendations for hybrid epicardial-endocardial ablation in patients with advanced non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Convergent ablation may benefit select NPAF patients; leaves open optimal patient selection and long-term outcomes.
Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF) accounts for approximately 40-50% of identified AF and is often accompanied by structural and functional atrial remodeling. Advanced disease can result in increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Anti-arrhythmic drugs or endocardial pulmonary vein isolation are less successful in NPAF. Hybrid epicardial-endocardial (convergent) ablation is a treatment for advanced AF supported by a randomized clinical trial for which best practices were published in 2020. With gained clinical experience and evidence, herein is an update to hybrid convergent best practices, with a focus on recommendations where possible. This includes the establishment of a multidisciplinary hybrid AF team, patient selection criteria, procedural logistics and protocols, intraoperative considerations, postoperative management, left atrial appendage closure, patient/provider education, adverse event mitigation, and follow-up patient outcomes. Future directions are explored, including the use of alternative ablation energy sources and robotic-assisted techniques.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Eldadah et al. (2026) conducted a review in Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF). Hybrid epicardial-endocardial (convergent) ablation was evaluated. This updated best practices guide provides recommendations for hybrid convergent ablation in advanced atrial fibrillation, covering patient selection, procedural protocols, and postoperative management.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: